Damien English
Question:45 Mr. English asked the Minister for Education and Science the method of evaluating expenditure on specific initiatives in place in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40246/06]
Other Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
My Department approaches the evaluation of its programmes and initiatives in a number of different ways. One of these is the formal Government programme of value for money reviews, formerly called expenditure reviews, in which my Department participates. The objectives of these reviews, which were introduced in 1997, are to analyse Exchequer spending in a systematic manner and to provide a basis on which more informed policy and expenditure decisions can be made.
Value for money reviews are one of a range of modernisation initiatives aimed at moving public sector management away from the traditional focus on inputs to concentrate more on the achievement of results. They are organised on the basis of three year planning periods. The current programme of reviews is scheduled to be completed in the 2006-08 period.
A critical component of my Department's approach to evaluation is the work of the evaluation support and research unit of the inspectorate, which focuses on educational outcomes. The unit co-ordinates periodic evaluations of the quality of educational provision in primary and post-primary schools and centres for education. The approach to conducting these evaluations usually involves collection of data about student achievement levels and observation in classrooms by inspectors to determine the quality of learning and teaching. Interviews and meetings are also held with key stakeholders in the relevant schools and centres for education.
Over and above this, my Department, through its line management divisions, examines particular issues, programmes and elements of programmes to inform changed approaches. This forms part of the general obligation on public sector managers to ensure that State funds are utilised in an efficient and effective manner.
My question relates not so much to schools as to other bodies set up by the Department of Education and Science, for example, bodies such as the National Educational Welfare Board to which the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, referred in his reply to Deputy Gogarty. The Minister of State said that board meets its obligations. What I am curious about is how he judges it meets its obligations. We do not know there is an improvement in school completion rates or in the number of students making the transition from primary to post-primary level. How do we evaluate that?
We could also look at the example of the school completion programme which has one national co-ordinator, four assistants and 65 cluster co-ordinators. Separate advertisements are issued for all of these at a cost of €3,000 each. The Department still makes the major decisions on the programme and there is an automatic increase in funding each year. Are we actually getting more students to complete school each year?
I support Youthreach and am glad to see more funding allocated to it. However, it is still at pilot stage and we have not evaluated whether it should be extended or more could be achieved through it. I would like to see more evaluation done on these types of initiatives. How do the Minister and her officials evaluate such bodies?
The best way to answer the question is to give examples of the evaluations that have taken place. Two of these were published during the summer, namely, the review of the supply teacher scheme for primary schools and the review of the small school and permanent accommodation initiative. These reviews covered two very different areas.
It is easier to assess something like capital funding because one can see results, whereas it is not so easy to see results in other areas. The review of the small school and permanent accommodation initiative showed it provided value for money for taxpayers. The schools in the initiative got better accommodation more quickly than if they had gone through the traditional programme and acquired permanent rather than temporary accommodation. The funding control mechanisms were found effective and school management authorities were satisfied. It was easy, therefore, to assess that initiative.
The review of the supply teacher initiative concluded the scheme generally contributes positively to primary education in the areas in which it operates, though levels of success vary. The scheme was found to be relatively expensive in terms of cost per day of substitution, but that had to be balanced with other educational and policy issues. The review concluded that the effective provision of quality substitution would need a mixed market approach to supply the teacher scheme agency supplying casual substitution. This is valuable information for future policy direction. We know now we should not just take one route on the supply teacher scheme but that we need to have a balance. The review, therefore, identified a particular issue of value to us.
The DEIS scheme arose from the evaluation of existing schemes which were deemed too disparate and not sufficiently concentrated. This led directly into policy.
Deputy Enright mentioned she was interested in Youthreach. Some of the reviews under way include a review of the youth encounter projects, the schools ICT support services and the ICT undergraduate skills programme. New reviews proposed are a review of Youthreach, senior Travellers training centres, teacher education and school insurance arrangements. A range of reviews is being undertaken to establish the initiatives we will use for the next couple of years. These reviews look at education from the point of view of people and the buildings involved and at various other areas.
I accept the Deputy's point that we need to be able to evaluate the results of these initiatives. That is the aim of this project. We used only look at things in the context of the inputs we made, but now we also look at the results. These types of reviews will help us to determine future policy.
Schools Building Projects.
Simon Coveney
Question:46 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of school building projects awaiting progression by her Department; the classification of these projects; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40237/06]
The Government is determined to ensure that every child is educated in a suitable and comfortable environment. Since 1997, great advances have been made in transforming school accommodation throughout the country through an investment of €3 billion. This has funded 7,800 individual school projects in the past seven years alone. This year we will spend €500 million on school buildings compared with just over €90 million in 1997. Under the 2006 budget, €3.9 billion is being provided over the years 2006-10 for capital projects at all levels of the education sector from primary to third level.
While the challenge before us in reversing decades of underinvestment in school buildings and in responding to emerging needs in new population areas is great, nonetheless we are making huge progress. The level of work being done under the school building programme is at an all-time high. While increased investment has been a central reason for this, the introduction of new schemes and changes in how projects are managed have also made a major difference.
Almost 800 schools were approved for summer works projects this year. This innovative scheme, which allows schools to get small projects done over the summer holidays, did not exist when we came into office and schools were waiting for many years for improvements such as rewiring, new roofs or windows. Now when the school gates close for the summer, the builders move in and the students come back to an improved environment just a few short months later.
To reduce red tape and allow projects to move faster, responsibility for smaller projects has been devolved to school level. Standard designs have also been developed for eight and 16-classroom schools to facilitate speedier delivery of projects and save on design fees. Improvements have also been made in forward planning through greater co-operation with local authorities and the publication of area development plans.
With regard to school building projects awaiting progression, the Deputy will be aware that the number of projects and their individual classifications can vary according to the stage of assessment and their progression though the building programme. At present, my Department has in the region of 1,300 applications for building works on the main building programme. These applications can range from extensions and refurbishments to applications for new schools on new sites. Their status can range from applications recently received in the Department to projects at various stages of architectural planning.
These projects are assessed and prioritised in accordance with the prioritisation criteria agreed with the education partners. In this regard, it should be noted that a project's banding can be subject to reassessment having regard to demographic developments in the area served by the school and also, for example, if on foot of a technical examination of the school it is found that the proposed project put forward by the school is not an appropriate design solution to meet the accommodation requirements.
In addition to the projects mentioned, there are approximately 400 applications under the small schools initiative and the permanent accommodation scheme, but many of these may also have applied under the main programme. These applications are currently being assessed with a view to an announcement being made shortly. In addition, applications for the summer works scheme 2007 are being evaluated.
The €3.9 billion envelope provided for education capital in the 2006 budget means that significant progress will continue to be made on school buildings in the coming years. This year alone, over 1,300 building projects will be delivered.
The Minister said I would be aware of all this, but unfortunately I am not. I have asked several questions on the issue but did not get specific answers. I am glad to hear 1,300 projects are in the pipeline. However, schools are entitled to know where they stand. Up to two years ago schools were able to check their position on the website and this saved people much time, particularly officials from the Department. On the website people could see the prioritisation and banding given to their schools. I ask the Minister to reinstate that facility because it was the most democratic and transparent way of operating and showing schools where they stood. I accept assessments and prioritisations may change for demographic reasons etc. People should be made aware of those reasons. I urge the Minister to reconsider providing this type of information on the website. I and other Deputies do not want Department officials spending time answering parliamentary questions in regard to individual schools. However, local people in different areas come to us for information and want to know the banding and the priority being given. It is unacceptable that this information is not available.
Some years ago, there was one annual announcement on school buildings, which took place at the beginning of the year, and no further announcements took place with regard to schools progressing. Given the number of different schemes currently in place, there have been perhaps eight different announcements so far this year.
Those schemes also existed during the time in office of the previous Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, when the information was on the website.
It is a public relations exercise.
No. Under my predecessor, one announcement was made at the beginning of the year.
But under all the different schemes.
We now keep money rolling constantly through the pipeline. It no longer applies that we must spend all capital funding within a particular year. It is a rolling capital envelope, so we can show that more and more projects are getting into the system.
Given that 1,300 schools undertook modernisation projects this year, it is important they would be dealt with under a number of different schemes, particularly devolved schemes. Later this week I will announce another batch of schools that will go to tender over the next year to 15 months or so. There will then be a further announcement with regard to the summer works scheme for next year to allow schools to plan properly, and a further announcement on the permanent initiative. With so many schools undertaking projects, the schools realise the investment taking place is helping them to deliver both small scale and large scale solutions for schools that have experienced under-investment for many years.
Some 1,300 schools are in the building programme and this year alone 1,300 schools — it is a coincidence of numbers — are undertaking building projects. Significant progress is being made on all of those buildings.
It is not happening in north Cork.
Nor in Dublin North-Central.
I wish to ask the Minister about a specific aspect of this issue, namely, the progression from temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation for new schools. For example, there are five Gaelscoileanna in my constituency, four of which are in temporary accommodation — one in particular, Gaelscoil Sáirséil, is in appalling condition. Another example is that of the Educate Together schools. Of the 23 new Educate Together schools opened since 2000, 22 are in temporary accommodation. Educate Together has had to refuse four groups of parents in various parts of the country applications under their patronage for new schools due to the cost of schools being housed in temporary accommodation. It is a serious problem. For example, a parent in Carlow to whom I spoke thought a school would open next year but it now has no patron.
Will the Minister address the problem of schools remaining in temporary accommodation for such a long period, particularly with regard to the Educate Together crisis?
There are 4,000 schools in the country, a number of which are in very old buildings which need to be preserved and protected. They too are entitled to the facilities they need. A new school coming on stream only gets permanent recognition after three years. Each school has to prove there is a need for it and that it will have the numbers. It will never be possible to give them permanent accommodation in a new area.
That needs to change.
There are obviously difficulties with regard to the school in Limerick to which the Deputy referred. The OPW has been anxiously trying to source a site for it.
They are in a chicken shed in Balbriggan and a mortuary in Navan.
We have area development plans and strategic development zones, and we have made arrangements with county councils, particularly the county council in Fingal, where we will build 20 new schools in the coming years.
We are 15 years behind.
We have already made arrangements with Fingal County Council that school sites will be identified.
What about St. Michael's House? It is in a chicken shed. That is where pupils are going to school.
It will then be able to provide us with a site and we will be able to build sporting accommodation and community facilities which can be used by the school and the community. Those are the type of initiatives taking place. Only last week, the Taoiseach turned the sod for a new school in Adamstown where no house has been built yet.
That does not solve the problem.
It shows that with new initiatives we are moving ahead and making progress.
That does not provide the information needed.
We do not need history lessons.
The Minister should go to Newbridge and sort out the problems there.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.